Moon Mystery House/ Mystery Hut/ Cube: Secret Buildings in Background of the Photo

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Well how did you start off learning BEFORE you improved that "circle" code on the ZX Spectrum? You went to college for programming or related field, back in the 80's or 70's?

No, I started by reading the ZX Spectrum manual, which explained the BASIC programming language it used, then I read magazines, bought a couple of books and started programming in Assembly language. After that I learned how to reroute the calls to the original functions in the ROM and replace use our own functions.

The fact that we were limited to 48 K of memory for programs and data made it hard to create more advanced programs, but it was a great way of learning.

That sounds so awesome.

You probably already know that the US basically went mostly-unaware of the ZX Spectrum, along with the rest of the general computer scene, of those years... and computers only really started to catch on, in the late 90's. It seems we went a solid couple decades behind the rest of the world there!

In the 80's we were playing Nintendo Entertainment System, watching TV with maybe extra cable channels, and using VCR's to record soap operas, lol.

I can't help being kind of jealous that we weren't playing with actual computers back then too. I mean we could pour years into mastering our Nintendo games, so we certainly had POTENTIAL to do things with computers, if we had actually had them.

It's really bizarre for me to think about other countries, kids growing up with computers in the 80's and 90's.

originally posted by: JamesChessman

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Ok. I don't think I asked you much about what your actual personal experience was for 40 years working w digital images? Or if u did tell me at some point, can you remind me? I will trust in that and now I'm curious about it, as you're mentioning it.

I started back in the 80s, with a ZX Spectrum, and one of the first things I did was rewrite the code for the "circle" command, as the circle was not that well done. My version was a little slower but the circle looked perfect at all sizes.

I've been doing some image editing for the last 30 years, and in the last 15 (specially in the last 5), I have been doing quality control of scanned images, with the last work (ended 4 years ago) being quality control of 750,000 images, both just after being scanned (to see if the scanner needed cleaning or repairing) and at the end of work batch, to see if everything was as it should.

The above has not been my work all the time, my main work has been programming for almost 30 years, and before that it was just at a personal level, not professional.

I've also always heard that the United States was relatively behind-the-curve with computers in those decades haha, and I think it's generally considered the LATE 90'S when MOST Americans really STARTED becoming familiar w/ computers.

So it's like amazing for me to think about people doing things with computers back then...

What ?????

Gross ignorance of history of computing.
First integrated circuit was invented by American Fairchild corp in 1960
First minicomputer was by American DEC corp in 1964
The Unix O/S ( ancestor of Linux) came from American Bell labs in 1969
First microprocessor was the American Intel 4004 in 1971
American Apple 1 computer came out in 1976, with the Apple 2 in June 1977
The Commodore PET and the TRS-80 also came out in 1977
The IBM PC came out in 1981 and was also the start of Microsoft
The apple MacIntosh came out in 1984
Both the PC and the Mac were mass market home computers, more powerful than the sinclair machines, and Most everyone in America and around the planet were aware of these in the early 80s.
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were celebrities back then.
The first Internet web browser came out in 1990, and Mosaic came out in 1993

Most computing innovations from Ethernet, mouse, touch pad, windows all came out of the US.

Way, way before "the late 90s"



Facepalm......

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Well how did you start off learning BEFORE you improved that "circle" code on the ZX Spectrum? You went to college for programming or related field, back in the 80's or 70's?

No, I started by reading the ZX Spectrum manual, which explained the BASIC programming language it used, then I read magazines, bought a couple of books and started programming in Assembly language. After that I learned how to reroute the calls to the original functions in the ROM and replace use our own functions.

The fact that we were limited to 48 K of memory for programs and data made it hard to create more advanced programs, but it was a great way of learning.

Also this is a tangent, but: speaking of learning programming:

I gave it a shot in 2017-2018, to learn on my own, and without knowing anything about it beforehand. I had a cousin recommend someone who was doing a little bit of free online teaching (re: software development for macOS and iOS). My dad bought me my beautiful computer for that purpose (2017 iMac).

Well I love my Mac, and I'm certainly capable of learning & messing around with software development. I did the guy's free little class, which was creating the smallest, little phone-app.

So I did that, and then I set out to learn on my own. I looked around online, and I talked with the guy, and I read thru 3 books... but disappointingly, the books didn't really give me any direction, of what was actually worthwhile, to learn and pursue in the future.

...And the books' example exercises were creating little things that often didn't work, apparently from small updates to the coding itself over each year, so I'd end up just wondering why their examples wouldn't work for me, when I'd seemingly copy it exactly. Plus even if I got it working, these were stupid little programs that were just useless, anyway.

So the books were disappointing... and the online guy was disappointing... and I just didn't find a worthwhile path forward, at that point. I can definitely screw-around with software development, but it's a completely different matter if I can find something important to do with it. Which I didn't.

At that point in time, 2018, I had to conclude that while I can learn software development on my own, and I can screw around with it: Still, it ended up seeming a hobby / passion project, more than it seemed like a career path.

And context was that I needed a way to grind $$ for daily life needs, food-clothes-&-shelter, and I was stuck living in a bad place. So I needed daily-grind-money, and that basically concluded it. Because at best, software dev was a long-term dream for the future. It wasn't going to make $$ for me anytime soon, or help my life circumstances, anytime soon. So in 2018 I ended up letting go of that dream of learning programming and making $$ with it.

I also talked with the online guy, he mentioned a year-long, full-time, free course load... which wasn't possible for me anyway. I didn't have my most basic life needs met, nor did I have a full year's worth of $$ saved up, to screw off for a year in the free classes. How would I eat, how would I have a place to live, etc.

The classes don't need to be paid for, until the student finds gainful employment. Sounds good but then that's talking about getting hired by some giant corporation and grinding out a career with them, which isn't really the life that I imagine I would want for myself. He mentioned one of his students getting hired by NIKE for a healthy career, and good for him, but I don't think I'd want that if I could have such a position. (If anything, I'd want to work on my own and make $$, if that was possible.)

So that was my experience pursuing that for a couple years. Soon after I got into some delivery gigs which is just a little bit techy, as everything is online and thru smartphone software, to do all the deliveries.

I also looked for other possible jobs to pursue with a good computer and smartphone... but so far it's the best thing I've found to deliver pizza and other restaurant food with my phone.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Well how did you start off learning BEFORE you improved that "circle" code on the ZX Spectrum? You went to college for programming or related field, back in the 80's or 70's?

No, I started by reading the ZX Spectrum manual, which explained the BASIC programming language it used, then I read magazines, bought a couple of books and started programming in Assembly language. After that I learned how to reroute the calls to the original functions in the ROM and replace use our own functions.

The fact that we were limited to 48 K of memory for programs and data made it hard to create more advanced programs, but it was a great way of learning.

I was a bit earlier than you with the Sinclair ZX80 which I still have and it has Memory 1 KB (16 KB max.)

ZX80

👽🛸👍🏼🍻

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: JamesChessman

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Ok. I don't think I asked you much about what your actual personal experience was for 40 years working w digital images? Or if u did tell me at some point, can you remind me? I will trust in that and now I'm curious about it, as you're mentioning it.

I started back in the 80s, with a ZX Spectrum, and one of the first things I did was rewrite the code for the "circle" command, as the circle was not that well done. My version was a little slower but the circle looked perfect at all sizes.

I've been doing some image editing for the last 30 years, and in the last 15 (specially in the last 5), I have been doing quality control of scanned images, with the last work (ended 4 years ago) being quality control of 750,000 images, both just after being scanned (to see if the scanner needed cleaning or repairing) and at the end of work batch, to see if everything was as it should.

The above has not been my work all the time, my main work has been programming for almost 30 years, and before that it was just at a personal level, not professional.

I've also always heard that the United States was relatively behind-the-curve with computers in those decades haha, and I think it's generally considered the LATE 90'S when MOST Americans really STARTED becoming familiar w/ computers.

So it's like amazing for me to think about people doing things with computers back then...

What ?????

Gross ignorance of history of computing.
First integrated circuit was invented by American Fairchild corp in 1960
First minicomputer was by American DEC corp in 1964
The Unix O/S ( ancestor of Linux) came from American Bell labs in 1969
First microprocessor was the American Intel 4004 in 1971
American Apple 1 computer came out in 1976, with the Apple 2 in June 1977
The Commodore PET and the TRS-80 also came out in 1977
The IBM PC came out in 1981 and was also the start of Microsoft
The apple MacIntosh came out in 1984
Both the PC and the Mac were mass market home computers, more powerful than the sinclair machines, and Most everyone in America and around the planet were aware of these in the early 80s.
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were celebrities back then.
The first Internet web browser came out in 1990, and Mosaic came out in 1993

Most computing innovations from Ethernet, mouse, touch pad, windows all came out of the US.

Way, way before "the late 90s"



Facepalm......

You must have no idea what the common American life experience was through the 80's and 90's.

All your dates are IRRELEVANT to that. I wasn't talking about what years different computers came out.

Most Americans were aware of computers as novelty items, in our libraries, in the 80's, and thru most of the 90's.

Bill Gates and Steve Jobs as celebrities back then, is completely irrelevant. If they were famous it was through television and magazines... which is just reinforcing the lack of computers and internet usage. Duh.

The first web browser came out in 1990, that's irrelevant.

What IS relevant is that normal, widespread usage of personal computers and internet, started catching on here in the late 90's. Which is exactly what I said.









...Talk about looking for problems / disagreements / arguments, that aren't even there, lol.

You're either familiar with the common American life experience of those decades, or you're not.

On the other hand, while I might feel jealous of kids who actually grew up with computers in the 80's:

I'm also grateful for my childhood WITHOUT computers. I graduated highschool in 2000 and we seemed basically the last generation to make our way through most of highschool without computers. My last year of highschool, I chose to take an extra class to learn TYPING. This was 1999-2000.

That's my timeframe that I grew up with. I learned to type in 2000, lol.

Later I got my first computer in 2005.





Anyway my early childhood was quite nice without computer or even videogames. I had a loving family but also I had a lot of solitude, and quiet, and time with my own thoughts. Books, toys, a bike, and we had nature to explore.

There's something important about quiet and solitude, and I'm grateful that's how my childhood started out.

Nowadays there are probably untold millions of people who never get any quiet or solitude, at all. The modern internet is wayyyy too easy to be a constant bombardment of videos, every moment, it is making people crazy.

Anyway as for the Mystery Hut:

Like I've said:

I think the object is at least POTENTIALLY an ongoing mystery, and unless ArMaP hears back from the folks he emailed with questions about the images:

Then otherwise, we can only wait for the hopeful, eventual upload of more images, to China's PDS website.

So we're waiting for future developments, and till then, it seems the topic is just deaded.

All the weird imagery in the large JPG landscape shot, it all gets blamed on the original PNG being small, low-res, blotchy, disgusting, and then going thru a nightmare JPG conversion, which created all the weird imagery as JPG artifacts.

That's really how it all settles. And I can't really argue with it, because that's just how everything has worked out.

I can accept that as the apparent explanation, for most of the weird imagery.





But I think even then, the object itself remains a possible mystery.

And we can really only hope to see better images / new images of the object, in the future PDS upload that we're hoping for.





...So be that as it may, I just want to show why I still find the object mysterious. Besides the obvious weird face of it.


...There's basically 3 CUBE-related traits... which might be coincidences, OR it might be 3 indications that it's actually cube shaped.










1.
First of all, many early headlines mentioned a CUBE shape, and it might be easy to overlook that, because it was mostly called a "mystery house" or "mystery hut." Still, there were ALSO several mentions of the object as a CUBE, in those early headlines.

So right away, I was wondering WHY there was mention of the object as a cube, because that's not really an obvious impression, in the first images that blew up:

The big JPG that blew up, online, initially:


The 2nd image that blew up online, alongside the large JPG, "Purple Haze:"


^So honesty, the first headlines and images, had me wondering why there was a "cube" mentioned.






2.
That's one reason I was so excited when I brightened it and seemed to show a 3D cube shape. It's exciting because it seemed to be... revealing the secret "cube" shape, which was hinted at in the headlines.

And it seemed to be answering the question of WHY the headlines were mentioning a "cube," at all.




Hard to find an image of dice with the same angle, but this is close:







3.
Finally, the 2nd round of news headlines brought us the "Image 3" landscape shot, and the close-up "boulder shot."

While I understand that... of course, shadows can look misleading, based on the shape of terrain, and light source:

I get that, but also... there is still a wrong-looking shadow, it LOOKS LIKE it was cast by a... CUBE.




...So in my eyes, those are 3 prominent coincidences re: descriptions of a cube, and appearances of a cube. So this is a small remaining mystery, at least potentially, imo.

Because maybe it actually is a 3D cube object.

Oh also, I think there's... at least a SMALL mystery... of how exactly the early images are supposed to match with that final "close-up boulder shot."



Just to illustrate, embedding a little bit redundantly, but making a point:

Here's again the "giant JPG landscape shot" that initially blew up:


And again, here's "Purple Haze:"


Finally, we got "Image 3" landscape shot, + close-up "boulder shot."




So I just find the "boulder shot" as unconvincing that it's really the same object, as seen in the earlier images... not just because its shadow seems like it was cast by a cube, but also...

...I just don't see how exactly the images are supposed to really match up, exactly, with the "boulder shot."


What I think it's SUPPOSED TO BE, is that... the original weird "face" of the object... is supposed to be the lower-left-side section of the boulder.

Which vaguely shows the shapes that initially resembled... a dark doorway, between 2 vertical pillars. Which was mainly seen in "Image 2, Purple Haze."








...ALSO, when I brightened the JPG landscape shot, and I seemed to bring out that larger cube shape around the face of it:

...It seems the later-boulder-shot, is supposed to contain those "cube" shaped angular edges, too. If u really look for it, in the boulder's UPPER-LEFT section.




...So I think that's how it's all supposed to match up, but I don't think it really does match up cleanly.

...However: Granted, the "boulder shot" is seemingly at a different angle, which gives a slant to the parts that earlier, looked more vertical, in the early 2 images.

^So that's one reason for things to not match up.




...Yet the bottom line is that I find the final boulder-shot as unconvincing, as the same object as earlier shots, and / or unconvincing that the boulder-shot is really an accurate image altogether.

My personal feeling is that the "boulder-shot" is a heavily modified image.

The shadow seems to give away that the real-life object is a cube.

Which would mean that the "boulder-shot" was essentially taking a mysterious cube object, and photoshopping it into the shape of a lumpy boulder, which also retains the vague shapes that seemed so mysterious in the early shots.





And then also, believing that the early shots are showing the lumpy boulder, it's a bit of a leap-of-faith in the idea that the lighting was so absurdly bad, and the rover's camera was functioning so strange... that we only saw a small portion of a larger boulder... with that small section SO BRIGHT that it looked like a stand-alone object, meanwhile the majority boulder was invisible in the blackness.

That ALONE is quite a leap of faith, imo.

We have boulders on Earth, after all, and if we took photos at night, we wouldn't expect a small lit-up spot that looked like a temple doorway, while the MAJORITY of the rock was INVISIBLE in the black night. That's not what happens, as far as I know, haha.

a reply to: JamesChessman

In Portugal, the ZX Spectrum was very important, as it was the only affordable computer for many years, so most people that started in IT during the late 80s and early 90s started by having a ZX Spectrum.

originally posted by: JamesChessman

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: JamesChessman

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Ok. I don't think I asked you much about what your actual personal experience was for 40 years working w digital images? Or if u did tell me at some point, can you remind me? I will trust in that and now I'm curious about it, as you're mentioning it.

I started back in the 80s, with a ZX Spectrum, and one of the first things I did was rewrite the code for the "circle" command, as the circle was not that well done. My version was a little slower but the circle looked perfect at all sizes.

I've been doing some image editing for the last 30 years, and in the last 15 (specially in the last 5), I have been doing quality control of scanned images, with the last work (ended 4 years ago) being quality control of 750,000 images, both just after being scanned (to see if the scanner needed cleaning or repairing) and at the end of work batch, to see if everything was as it should.

The above has not been my work all the time, my main work has been programming for almost 30 years, and before that it was just at a personal level, not professional.

I've also always heard that the United States was relatively behind-the-curve with computers in those decades haha, and I think it's generally considered the LATE 90'S when MOST Americans really STARTED becoming familiar w/ computers.

So it's like amazing for me to think about people doing things with computers back then...

What ?????

Gross ignorance of history of computing.
First integrated circuit was invented by American Fairchild corp in 1960
First minicomputer was by American DEC corp in 1964
The Unix O/S ( ancestor of Linux) came from American Bell labs in 1969
First microprocessor was the American Intel 4004 in 1971
American Apple 1 computer came out in 1976, with the Apple 2 in June 1977
The Commodore PET and the TRS-80 also came out in 1977
The IBM PC came out in 1981 and was also the start of Microsoft
The apple MacIntosh came out in 1984
Both the PC and the Mac were mass market home computers, more powerful than the sinclair machines, and Most everyone in America and around the planet were aware of these in the early 80s.
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were celebrities back then.
The first Internet web browser came out in 1990, and Mosaic came out in 1993

Most computing innovations from Ethernet, mouse, touch pad, windows all came out of the US.

Way, way before "the late 90s"



Facepalm......

You must have no idea what the common American life experience was through the 80's and 90's.

All your dates are IRRELEVANT to that. I wasn't talking about what years different computers came out.

Most Americans were aware of computers as novelty items, in our libraries, in the 80's, and thru most of the 90's.

Bill Gates and Steve Jobs as celebrities back then, is completely irrelevant. If they were famous it was through television and magazines... which is just reinforcing the lack of computers and internet usage. Duh.

The first web browser came out in 1990, that's irrelevant.

What IS relevant is that normal, widespread usage of personal computers and internet, started catching on here in the late 90's. Which is exactly what I said.









...Talk about looking for problems / disagreements / arguments, that aren't even there, lol.

You're either familiar with the common American life experience of those decades, or you're not.

Completely wrong !!
Widespread usage of computers in the US started in the 80s, as proven by multi billion dollar sales.
Millions of units shipped in 1984 for the US market alone, rising to 37 million unit annually by 1994

You are inventing a TOTALLY false history
and... the US was NEVER behind any other nation in computing as provent by the milestones listed above
You are just ignorant.
Admit it.

Just because in your own home, your parents chose to give you only game stations does not mean everyone else was that retarded until the late 90s

originally posted by: JamesChessman
...There's basically 3 CUBE-related traits... which might be coincidences, OR it might be 3 indications that it's actually cube shaped.

First of all, to know if it's a cube or not we need a 3D visualization of the object, the people that started calling it "cube" were giving it a shape without any real reason for it.
At most, they should say the object has a square face facing the camera.

I know this may be considered nit-picking, but it's, once more, a case of definitions, and that's how wrong ideas are spread.

That's one reason I was so excited when I brightened it and seemed to show a 3D cube shape. It's exciting because it seemed to be... revealing the secret "cube" shape, which was hinted at in the headlines.

What cube shape?

I get that, but also... there is still a wrong-looking shadow, it LOOKS LIKE it was cast by a... CUBE.

No, it does not.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Oh also, I think there's... at least a SMALL mystery... of how exactly the early images are supposed to match with that final "close-up boulder shot."

No mystery for me, as I will explain on my next post.

The shadow seems to give away that the real-life object is a cube.

Never trust a side-projected shadow to show you the shape of an object, as it depends on the shape of the side you aren't seeing and, like all shadows, on the surface where it is projected, like in the photo I posted some pages back and that I repost here.

And then also, believing that the early shots are showing the lumpy boulder, it's a bit of a leap-of-faith in the idea that the lighting was so absurdly bad, and the rover's camera was functioning so strange... that we only saw a small portion of a larger boulder... with that small section SO BRIGHT that it looked like a stand-alone object, meanwhile the majority boulder was invisible in the blackness.

What "majority of the boulder"?

We have boulders on Earth, after all, and if we took photos at night, we wouldn't expect a small lit-up spot that looked like a temple doorway, while the MAJORITY of the rock was INVISIBLE in the black night. That's not what happens, as far as I know, haha.

Are you are calling the part that you made more visible on your increased brightness image "the majority of the boulder"?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
...There's basically 3 CUBE-related traits... which might be coincidences, OR it might be 3 indications that it's actually cube shaped.

First of all, to know if it's a cube or not we need a 3D visualization of the object, the people that started calling it "cube" were giving it a shape without any real reason for it.
At most, they should say the object has a square face facing the camera.

I know this may be considered nit-picking, but it's, once more, a case of definitions, and that's how wrong ideas are spread.

That's one reason I was so excited when I brightened it and seemed to show a 3D cube shape. It's exciting because it seemed to be... revealing the secret "cube" shape, which was hinted at in the headlines.

What cube shape?

I get that, but also... there is still a wrong-looking shadow, it LOOKS LIKE it was cast by a... CUBE.

No, it does not.

^Alright I think I'm just going to draw, what I'm talking about: The cube shape that I thought was obvious in the brightened JPG version of the object.
I'll draw it in.

Also I'll draw what I was describing in trying to match up the disparate images, which don't seem to really cleanly match up with each other, AFAIK.

After my last post I already started. I began trying to draw over the "boulder shot" image, with the editing options in Preview (which I believe is the standard photo viewer in macOS, or at least, I've been using it that way).

Weirdly though, I didn't find a way to just simply DRAW over it, in Preview; rather, it only wanted to draw weird lines for different weird editing purposes, lol.

So then I opened up the "boulder shot" in Sketchbook and I did begin drawing over it, nicely.

I didn't go further than that yet, but I certainly can draw some red lines over the images, to show how/why I think they are problematic to reconcile with each other.





...I think you seem to be honestly not understanding what I've been describing, about that, and plus I enjoy drawing, so I'll mess around with that sometime soon.

a reply to: ArMaP

I get that, but also... there is still a wrong-looking shadow, it LOOKS LIKE it was cast by a... CUBE.

No, it does not.

I'm not sure how exactly you'd disagree with me, that the shadow (in the "boulder shot")... LOOKS LIKE... it was cast by a cube.

This is NOT claiming that it's absolutely a cube object.

But I thought it was pretty inarguable that... at least on surface level, the shadow LOOKS LIKE it was cast by a cube.





Also, of course, I do understand that shadows warp with terrain and light sources. Like your example orange photo with an angular shadow. I get it.


However your orange example is also more obvious that it's a messy shaped mass that the shadow is on, so that lumpy tablecloth (?) is obviously warping that shadow.

^So your example DOES show a warped, angular shadow...

But the comparison falls apart, with the lunar terrain looking rather flat. So it's altogether more convincing that the angular shadow actually came from an angular object.





And the orange photo is not... actually really compelling that the shadow came from an angular object...

Even if you were to chop off the left side of the image, showing the orange: The weird shadow would still be an obviously warped shadow on the lumpy cloth.


Not really equivalent with the boulder shot, because of the flat terrain, versus the orange example lumpy terrain.

*UNLESS the boulder shot... is actually giving a false impression of flat terrain, which is possible. And so... IF the boulder shot terrain is actually much lumpier than it looks, then I guess that would be pretty equivalent with the orange example.




...Is that actually how you're interpreting the "boulder shot?"

Are you considering the terrain as not really being flat (as it seems)... so it's lumpy / uneven, and distorting the shadow?

a reply to: ArMaP

Are you are calling the part that you made more visible on your increased brightness image "the majority of the boulder"?

^Sorry, I was mainly just referring to the published images of the object.

Early headlines blew up with the "giant JPG" and "Purple Haze."



The second round of headlines published the "Image 3 landscape" and the "boulder shot."




Basically I was saying that it's difficult to match up the "boulder shot" with the earlier shots of the object.

This is what I'm going to draw over the images, to show what I mean.




But so what I mean is that the earlier images show that very small "face" of the object.

(Referring to the "giant JPG" / "small PNG", and also, referring to "Purple Haze.")

There's that weird "face" of the object, apparently illuminated by sun. It resembles a temple door with pillars on each side, in those first couple images.




So my point is that it's hard to figure exactly how the early couple shots of that "temple face" is supposed to match on the final "Image 3 boulder-shot."


I THINK we are meant to assume that the small illuminated "temple face" (from the first images)... is the lower-left portion of the Image 3 boulder.


And then also, it seems that... in my brightened JPG... the angular CUBE shapes that I brightened up... are apparently represented in the Image 3 boulder, as the top-left portion of the boulder.




I tried to explain it clearly and apologies if it's not clear. I will draw what I'm talking about.

a reply to: M5xaz

Look it's just impossible to take you seriously that you're trying to have a real argument over US timeline of widespread computer adoption & usage.

If you were, then I think your best argument would start by stating what area of the country you grew up in, if that's supposed to be your reference point for arguing about that?

And then describe how you apparently grew up in a very advanced family and community who were heavy into computers and internet, back in the 1980's?

Is that really what you're... (pretending) you're trying to argue?

And then even if you did grow up in some tech oasis in the early 80's, then you should have been well aware that the majority of the country wasn't on the same level as your imaginary hi-tech childhood that you're implying lol.





...And then of course, if you didn't grow up in the US... which you didn't... then you make no sense trying to argue about what life was like for Americans during different time periods... that you were not part of.

Also one time-marker that's prominent to me:

1996 had the whole world flipping-out for Mario 64, on the N64. It was blowing everyone's mind, because for most people, it was the first time seeing such a 3D gameplay.

I was amazed like everyone, just to control Mario running in circles. There were free demo kiosks at Blockbuster, to try it.

...However I wasn't ever really THAT excited about Mario 64 (beyond its revolutionary gameplay, for that specific point in time).







I was always curious about the VERY overlooked contemporary titles from SEGA, that same year. NiGHTS into Dreams, and Christmas NiGHTS into Dreams. On Sega Saturn.



As an adult I acquired everything NiGHTS on Saturn and it's so wonderful. It's a small game, but it's a racer /collectathon, so you replay each track many times to git gud. Absolutely transcendent dream imagery and music evolution system!!





Alright so NiGHTS does mark 1996 as... appealing for customers in the PRE-INTERNET AGE, here in the US...

Or maybe it's better to say that NiGHTS' target audience... was populations without computers & web. So that's the way that NiGHTS hit, here in the US, in 1996.

This is self-evident in Christmas NiGHTS especially:

There are unlockable images of artwork... that really ONLY make sense in a world that was still without internet.

The entire value of Christmas NiGHTS' unlockable images... is based on... collecting digital images, in a home without internet, for collecting digital images.











I never put any real attention or time into Mario 64 but I'd expect that it would also indicate pre-internet populations, as its main demographic... because if computers & web were more common, then Mario 64 seems less impressive, I reckon.

Because for example: Doom was certainly established & popular, a few years before Mario 64, and I think that if more people were familiar with Doom (3D gameplay) then they wouldn't have been so excited about stupid Mario 64 in 1996.




So I think both of these huge '96 titles are both indicative of the pre-internet age, as their obvious target audience.

And especially Mario 64's wild popularity... has to be proportional, to the lack of commonplace computers (with 3D games for years already).



I wouldn't really try to guess other countries' situations, but 1996 was still a solid couple years before computers and internet started to become commonplace in the US...


I'd point at 1998 & 1999 as when computers and internet started to catch on, for Americans in general, AFAIK.

^

I never put any real attention or time into Mario 64 but I'd expect that it would also indicate pre-internet populations, as its main demographic... because if computers & web were more common, then Mario 64 seems less impressive, I reckon.

Because for example: Doom was certainly established & popular, a few years before Mario 64, and I think that if more people were familiar with Doom (3D gameplay) then they wouldn't have been so excited about stupid Mario 64 in 1996.

^Amazing that such graphics were exploding people's heads in 1996, and I think it was definitely most appealing for the non-PC crowd, as I explained.



...If everyone already had computers and internet back in 1996, then I think Mario would have been much less of a big deal, seeing as 3D games on PC, like Doom etc. were already established, and way more fun, imo.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: JamesChessman

One suggestion: don't take what is said on the Internet as serious, they are just words from people that do not really know you.

Also btw: When I explained that stuff... about my upload timeline being so seldom, that it's just gotta be obvious, that it's not a financial venture...

...I ALSO wrote that out... for myself in the future, so I can copy/paste my statements there, if/when such accusations come up again. (And I think ANY content creator can expect such accusations, automatically, lol.)



...And so if I make another video and thread, maybe in 6months, the inevitable accusations can get answered with that nice tidy copy/paste.

I think that things just worked out that way, naturally, in the last couple years... with only like 2 serious videos per year, it absolutely shows my lack of ambitions with my channel (besides what it's presented as, a hobby channel, about things that catch my interest).


Likewise, I think the fact of keeping my channel quietly, occasionally active, for 6 years... shows that I have a sustained honest interest, without any reward for doing so.






And also likewise: It's been 6 years... without ever asking for anything, at all.

And YouTubers obviously CAN and DO ask for stuff all the time. I have not.

(Referring to things like asking for donations / fundraisers... or selling memberships / merch, etc.)



^I'm just feeling glad that things have worked out this way, naturally, in recent times...

And I just don't think people will really even be able to make such accusations in the future, it would just be impossible.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Are you considering the terrain as not really being flat (as it seems)... so it's lumpy / uneven, and distorting the shadow?

Yes, I think the areas marked in red in the image below are higher than the areas marked in blue.
The area in green is on a lower level, probably the inside of a small crater, with the boulder standing on the edge of the crater.



PS: the orange photo was taken several years ago, for another thread.